Linux-Advocacy Digest #721, Volume #25 Mon, 20 Mar 00 23:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Producing Quality Code (Mark Hamstra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:58:58 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:34 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 16 Mar 2000 03:21:11 GMT
>>On 14 Mar 2000 23:06:05 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>>>On 14 Mar 2000 04:49:58 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
>>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>You misspelled "bugs in the NeoMagic MagicGraph 128XD driver," since
>>>>it is the only driver I have ever run across / heard about with this
>>>>problem.
>Oh, you're installing Win95 on a Gateway 2600 laptop.
No, he's not. A Gateway 2300XL Solo was the platform specified. Our
regular readers are not surprized that Max pretty much starts off in
demonstrable error...
>Well, I gotta tell you,
>Norman, that you can't really blame Microsoft for all the problems with
>Windows on laptops. Laptops are just funny beasts by nature; the difficulty
>of building a real set of standards for laptop hardware makes driver problems
>a fact of life for laptop owners. It would be nice if we had a standard OS to
>provide some needed consistency, of course, and since we don't, we can blame
>Microsoft, but that's one of the more general ways in which Microsoft has
>cheated consumers, manufacturers, and suppliers. I don't think we're going to
>get very far with Roger if we require such comprehensive thinking. (I don't
>think we're going to get very far with Roger at all, but that's because he
>won't provide any original discussion or go away; he's just here for amusement
>value anyway.)
Says the master of truth by assertion. For example, MS does not have
a standard OS which will work on this laptop. Why? <Max> Because I
said so! </Max>
>So to get back to specifics...
Oh, do let's...
>>>>That being the case, it is likely in the extreme that starting in Safe
>>>>Mode would allow you to correct this problem -- exactly as it is
>>>>designed to do.
>I'll leave my own judgements about the video driver "bug" to another reply
>up-thread.
IOW, "he's right, but it would kill me to admit it, especially since
he's got my back up about that damn bet..."
>>How so? What you have described would be a major bug if it were
>>generic to the OS, and would effect other video drivers as well.
>The simplistic "if all video drivers aren't affected, it isn't the OS"
>troubleshooting is bogus bullshit, Roger.
<Max> Because I said so! </Max>
>There are any manner of ways in
>which it can be Microsoft's fault, and the general statement "their OS sucks"
>isn't too extreme to characterize the number of times *everybody else* has
>problems.
Then it should be no problem for you to detail, say, half a dozen ways
in which this particular bug could be th OS rather than the driver,
given that there is no report of it happening with any other driver...
Of, course, the existence of an updated driver on the Gateway site,
the README for which makes no mention of such a problem strongly
suggests that it was a bug in the driver which has been fixed in
version 4.10.01.0002-Q6.09.02.
>Its nice the way MS can take control and credit of your entire PC,
Which only happens in MaxWorld (t.m.)
>but can cast aside all blame since they're the ones who supply the one piece
>of software that everyone else uses. How does that work, they make the
>central OS, so they can't be blamed for problems? Oh yea, anti-competitive
>and anti-consumer licensing practices, of course.
Oh, yea -- drivers written by OEMs other than MS, of course.
>But you're saved by the bell this round, Roger, because, yes, the NeoMagic
>drivers are very problematic; they're a little buggy in *Linux*, too.
>Have
IOW, Max is once again arguing to hear himself talk, since he already
knows that I am right (which would kill him to admit in so many
words.)
BTW, Have ... ?
>>you reliable reports that such is happening? If not, then it would me
>>more sense to call it a driver issue than an OS issue, unless one's
>>primary motive was to bash MS.
>/flame on/
>OK, what's your point? Welcome to alt.destroy.microsoft, asshole. Our
>primary motive is to bash MS. They suck, they write shitty software, and they
>are a blight on our society. Have a nice day.
>/flame off/
Max once again showing that he not only cannot read a thread to which
he is responding, he also cannot read headers to determine that that
thread is crossposted.
Our regular viewers are not surprized that when faced with the fact
that Roger is correct, Max prefers hand waving, invective and
obscenity to the reasoned debate he * says * he favours...
>Actually, Roger, it was indeed one in a long list of examples of problems used
>to characterize the difficulties involved in a host of "OS issues", as you put
>it. The intent of presenting this list was, indeed, to "bash MS", such being
>the topic of discussion here quite commonly. Have a nice day.
Of course, Max hopes that the reader doesn't notice that Max has even
admitted that this was not an OS issue, but a driver issue.
>>Again, should such <peripheral damage> have occurred, it would have been a function
>of the
>>driver messing things up.
>Roger, dear roger; you haven't any way whatsoever to even begin to guess where
>to draw the line between Windows and the video driver.
<Max> Because I said so! </Max>
>Give it up. If we
>could ever get bored discussing how much Microsoft sucks, you would certainly
>bore us to tears. I can't believe after all these years, you're still
>trolling... dude, I think you've got some psychiatric problems.
Of course, a troll, in Max's estimation, is one who will not simply
accept what he says as truth, even tho he has often been shown to be
mistaken, flat out wrong, and lying in our interactions.
>> I have also never heard of this kind of
>>collateral damage occurring with the installation of a driver. So, in
>>answer to your question -- there is no way to KNOW absolutely that
>>such did not occur, but it is unlikely.
>Yes, there is a way to KNOW absolutely that such did occur, which is why
>Microsoft keeps their source code entirely secret.
Of course, IP issues don't come into play at all in their choice to
not release source to just anyone (ignoring for the nonce that they do
indeed release source under certain conditions) -- it's just that MS
is evil, and everything they do necessarily tainted.
>So it is unlikely it can
>ever be proven in a court of law. It can never be proven to you, simply by
>the nature of your problems.
Ah, yes -- those pesky fact thingies again. Max has such a problem
with them...
>>Reformat and reinstall is a common recommendation for a number of
>>organizations, for a variety of reasons, many of which have nothing to
>>do with it being the best / only way of resolving the issue
>All of which have one thing in common: they're because Microsoft's software
>sucks rocks through a straw.
<Max> Because I said so! </Max>
>And, yes, by definition any organization that
>recommends reformat/re-install does so because it is the most effective and
>efficient way of resolving the problem, to their knowledge and experience.
Bzzzt. They do so because it is the most effective and efficient way
of resolving the problem given that they have to deal with a variety
of customers at many levels of competence (and techs at many levels of
competence, but mostly entry level) and it is a quick fix, which
allows them to move on to the next call.
>Since everybody has to use the same crappy OS, everybody accepts *Microsoft's*
>recommendation to R&R in many cases.
Here's where I would normally ask for a reputable citation in support
of the assertion, but since it's Max I know none will be forthcoming.
MS does not recommend a reinstall in most cases.
>>Unless you have made changes to your BIOS setup, which you don't
>>mention having made elsewhere, 5 6 and 7 can be eliminated altogether.
>This step is required to ensure a known state for the COM 2 and IR port
>settings. I have experience with the "magic steps" which the Gateway 2600
>requires in order to configure it. I would not skip any steps. It almost
>goes without saying that I would not be stupid enough to tell someone else to
>skip those steps if I had no idea what I was talking about, as you are doing.
Of course, we're not discussing that model. Which gives the reader a
good idea of who it is that does not know what he is discussing...
>>You have not described the issues twould cause you to need to touch
>>your partitions, so everything down to 10a can be eliminated as well
>Once again, the same underlying hint of your intellectual deficiencies seem to
>show themselves; you have said that since you are not aware of something, it
>must not exist.
This was badly phrased: it should have been "You have not described
any issues that would cause you to need to..." IOW, nothing he has
mentioned would suggest that there were partition problems.
>Your point seems to be simply to attempt to minimize the
>number of steps required to reinstall Windows on the 2600, a feat which I will
>quickly point out is a very very intricate and problematic one; I say this, I
>remind you, from extensive personal experience.
Of course, we're * not * discussing the 2600, and my point is not to
minimize the procedure, but to simplify it at Norman's request.
>This after I remember seeing
>several entreaties to not do just that very thing.
He started this part of the thread saying that each and every step was
absolutely required, and challenging the group to prove him wrong.
>I would assume Norman
>desired more substantive discussion on the comprehensive issue of these
>intricacies, rather than be side-tracked by a demonstrationist waste of time
>such as what you laboriously post to interfere with rational debate.
IOW, Max hopes his hand waving will distract from the fact that
several steps can generally be eliminated, and others rearranged to a
more logical order.
>>> fdisk /mbr <- if boot sector is corrupted
>>And since you have not mentioned that the boot sector is corrupt, this
>>could be skipped in any case.
>Why? So that later when the OS pukes on itself and your apps and
>configurations again, it can be blamed on a bad hard disk?
There are several indications for a bad MBR. None have been specified
as pertaining to this case. Norman asked which steps could be
eliminated -- this one can in most cases.
>>> (The following 2 formats change the label to uppercase to workaround an
>>> FDISK bug.)
>>Why / how had they become lower case to begin with?
>Why/how is that relevant to the FDISK bug?
Limitation, not bug. FDISK was not designed as a general purpose
partitioning utility -- it was designed to manipulate MS-DOS
partitions. Had MS claimed the ability to work with any type of
partition, * then * it would be a bug.
>>If you know that there is not a non-DOS partition, why would you try
>>to delete it?
>To verify there is no non-DOS partition. Did you miss the part above about
>the MS bug which causes him to need to do this?
Please -- post an exact quote in which Norman says that he needs to
delete a non-DOS partition because FDISK does not handle lower case
volume names?
<Tholen> Reading comprehension problems? </Tholen>
>>>10A. (Continuation point if just reinstalling Windows)
>>> Note: the /u is important because Windows is (more) flaky if
>>> there is old random background data on the disk.
>>Proof of the above assertion?
>When you're working with Windows, you *gotta* use "voodoo". That goes without
>saying by those beyond the "Microsoft dweeb" state you seem to be stuck in,
>Roger.
<Max> Because I said so! </Max>
>>If you use the command format /u /s c: you can skip the sys command
>>here.
>I'm sure Norman appreciate the helpful advice, numbnuts.
Boy, you really are pissed about my not forgetting that bet, aren't
you?
>>> CTRL+ALT+DEL
>>Or simply type "autoexec" at the a: prompt, since you seem to need the
>>batch processes.
>Sorry, that's more keystrokes. ***BZZZZZZ*** You lose.
Ignoring that then he's not waiting for POST and boot. The idea is
not to generically eliminate keystrokes or mouse clicks, but to point
out unneeded steps and shorten the procedure as a whole. Since you
don't even know what box we're talking about, I guess you needed that
pointed out.
>>> copy *.* c:\cabs
>>Not necessary -- Win95 installs just fine from CD.
>What a goofball. Never gotten tagged by the "CD bootstrap" problem, Roger?
NOt on this box, no.
>Never noticed how Win95 installs at least twice as fast from the hard drive?
Depends on the system -- sometimes it is significantly slower.
>Never needed the cabs for anything after the install? Strike that, Roger;
>you're not a goofball; you're an idiot.
The step is not absolutely needed: however, I never said that I would
not recommend generally taking it.
>The Gateway 2600, like many other systems both laptop and desktop, makes it
>impossible for Windows to install "straight" from the CD.
Of course, you're the only one talking about that box...
>>> cd win95\solo2300\vxdinf
>>> copy *.* c:\cabs
>>Likely not necessary, since this will install from CD as well.
>Your stupidity is only exceeded by your repetitiveness, Rog.
Our regular readers are not surprized that Max has nothing
constructive to add...
>>I would recommend the command setup /id (skips disk space check) /is
>>(skips Scandisk) /im (skips check for memory) /iq (skips check for
>>crosslinked files)
>Wow, you just saved him a good forty seconds in a forty minute install.
>Nifty.
SCANDISK, depending on the system, can take longer than that. And I
don't notice you offering anything even that helpful...
>>Also, load SMARTDRV first -- the install will go * much * faster...
>You're not listening. You're not paying any attention at all. THIS IS THE
>GATEWAY LAPTOP 2600 MAGIC INSTALL.
No, it's * not *.
>DO NOT F@CK WITH IT! And stop trying to
>make us feel comfortable having to make up for a BROKEN operating system which
>requires being completely re-installed (and takes your app configurations with
>it even if you *don't* reformat) on a routine basis. JESUS you're stupid!
Ignoring the fact that generically, Windows does * not * need to be
regularly reinstalled.
Max once again hopes that his ad hominem will distract the reader
from observing that he cannot read a thread to which he is responding.
>>> Apply (Display Properties) (WARNING: DO NOT PRESS 'CLOSE' HERE
>>> BECAUSE DISPLAY WILL DISAPPEAR, THE COMPUTER WILL LOCK UP
>>> PERMANENTLY EVEN IF YOU TRY TO REBOOT, AND YOU'LL HAVE TO
>>> REFORMAT DISK AND START OVER
>>> Yes (System Settings Change ...restart your computer now?)
>>This restart in unnecessary, since you have other things to configure
>This restart is absolutely and completely necessary; if you don't reboot now,
>those "other things" may be MISconfigured, and you'll have to do THE WHOLE
>THING OVER AGAIN FROM SCRATCH.
Nope. One can install the sound driver and enable the PC Card slots
without running the NeoMagic display driver. If you are concerned
about the flakiness of that driver interfering, do the other first and
then install the video...
>>Enabling the second controller is unnecessary -- on the reboot, it
>>will be enabled as a consequence of enabling the first one.
>Once again, you speak from lack of experience with this procedure.
Nope. BTDTGTTS. * By design * either protect mode drivers are
enabled for both, or for neither -- you cannot do just one.
>Gateway
>seems to think it is necessary to check to make sure as there are many parts
>of this install procedure which don't seem to work as "automatically" (or at
>least correctly) as they're supposed to. Couldn't be MS bugs, of course; must
>be somebody else's fault.
Without independent confirmation that this step is specifically
required by GW, I will put this down to the same kind of retentiveness
which caused Norman to feel it necessary to double-check all of the
defaults in his connectoid later.
> [...]
>>> Power on computer
>>
>>I would move this to before the PC Card stuff and avoid another boot.
>
>You would start over again from scratch.
Nope.
>ventually, you would learn to do
>all those parts that you're insisting aren't necessary now. But you'd still
>insist it isn't MS's fault; you'd blame Gateway.
Nope, since the USB supplement will install fine where I said it will.
>>> Start
> [...]
>>> Shutdown
>>And this reboot can be avoided by refreshing the DevMan.
>Says you. And you're probably wrong again. And guess what that means? Yes,
>that's right; start over from scratch AGAIN.
Shall we count the number of times Max has been demonstrably wrong,
and those that I have been?
Bottom line -- this works.
>>> OK (You must provide computer and workgroup names...)
>>Of course, choosing a custom setup to begin with, you can specify all
>>of this during the initial installation...
>Yea, and you get to re-specify it during each and every re-installation, too.
No, only if you nuke it all and start over. Please tell me -- in what
general purpose OS would such a setting survive such an install?
>>Why the restart here -- you've just restarted and not made any
>>changes?
>Are you beginning to catch on, Roger? No, probably not.
IOW, I don't know why he's restarting here, either.
>>If you're installing a printer here, why did you cancel out of it
>>earlier?
>Like you care, or had a clue, either way.
That $100,000 and the fact that you backed out of it really hacks you
off, eh?
>>>[To install dial-up connection]
>>Again, handled during install
>Again, those of us with experience like to do these things the *right* way,
>rather than the *Microsoft* way.
And exactly how is doing it here rather than during the install the
"right" way?
>>> TelePath XJ5560 with x2 and cellular
>>Why go to Configure, etc. when you are not making any changes?
>Because there are some times when Windows needs you to do that. But its not
>an MS bug, no, can't be...
Nope -- you cannot substantiate the claim that in this scenario, these
settings will ever be anything but the defaults.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:03:44 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:40:00 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>Quoting 5X3 from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Mar 2000 18:27:31 GMT
>>I have the same model gateway (well, the equivalent, its only about a
>>year old) with all the fixins sitting at home on top of my stereo serving
>>up MP3s. I had exactly zero problems installing windows on it (98
>>and 2000). Everything was detected instantly.
>These two statements are contradictory.
There are three statements in that paragraph. Which two do you find
contradictory and why?
>>But I do actually use windows for menial tasks--playing games and
>>displaying cool visualization plug ins for mp3 players in my livingroom.
>>Linux would certianly be overkill.
>The last statement simply doesn't make any sense.
<Max> Because I said so! </Max>
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 04:04:52 GMT
On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:40:05 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin wrote:
>The problem is people say "reply with full details and let's see where the
>problem is." We KNOW where the problem is; the pre-load market.
The preload market effects the reinstallation process for a Gateway
2300 ... how, exactly?
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Producing Quality Code
Date: 20 Mar 2000 22:07:10 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mr_organic) writes:
> On 20 Mar 2000 15:00:12 -0500, mr_organic pronounced:
> >
> >Your premise that poor software quality is an acculturated
> >result of marketing driven decision making and engineers who
> >do not take their craft seriously is flawed (although the
> >thread about poor understanding of fundamentals engendered
> >through tools that isolate their users from understanding and
> >the bit about overly complex systems have some merit.)
> >
> Marketeering is what drives modern buying decisions, which
> in turn forms other business strategies; in this, it is a
> self-perpetuating medium. The media/marketers whip up
> demand for a (usually vaporous) product; users clamor for
> the product; business then rush to produce the product.
Nope, marketing is only part of the process. Yes, it can be
critical to this business model in the early stages, but it
is no more the determining factor in closed source software
development than is the match that starts a forest fire --
critical to getting things started, but not nearly so
important once the whole process is fully engaged. Regardless
of marketing, most Windows users couldn't switch OSes now if
they wanted to, and neither can many people change from
proprietary software tools and data formats.
These are fundamental economic issues, at have little to do
at the point of full engagement of the proprietary software
engine with marketing efforts or principled stands by
software engineers. If you don't fully understand the forces
of economy in play, then you stand to be spanked by Adam
Smith's invisible hand.
> Engineers are usually aware of this dichotomy, but elect to
> put up with it rather than protesting strongly and acting
> as agents for change.
Engineers with inadequate understandings of economic realities
make poor agents provocateur in the software marketplace.
Those who understand and respect the realities stand the best
chance of making a difference.
> >Poor software is not motivated by marketing decision making,
> >it is fundamental to the core business model: lock in users
> >to a proprietary platform as early as possible in order to
> >establish strong network effects. In such a model, speed is
> >of the essence -- it is more important to be first than to be
> >right -- and software quality suffers as a result. That is a
> >business model that works (at least in terms of generating
> >revenue), and is the one followed by pretty much every
> >successful software vendor (again, measured in monetary terms).
> >That strong marketing is essential to such a model is not the
> >same thing as marketing being the prime mover of the system.
> >
> I disagree; see my previous comments.
I have, and they're flawed.
> >Furthermore, it is not the case that engineers working within
> >such a business model have no respect for their craft -- but
> >they are severely restricted by the constraints and demands
> >of the business model. While there are definitely some
> >engineers and companies that seek to deliberately exploit
> >lock-in and network effects with little or no regard for design
> >and product quality fundamentals, there are also a large number
> >of coders who would dearly love to be able to write software
> >that they could be proud of for its technical elegance and not
> >just for its ability to generate revenue -- although most of
> >them are not willing to give up personal revenue in order to
> >acheive that pride in product.
> >
> >Only by providing a successful alternative to the dominant
> >software business model will you be able to acheive any
> >significant change in software quality. Jihads and insulting
> >pontification will gain you nothing in terms of software
> >quality -- and will likely generate nothing beyond ill will.
> >Instead of engaging in easy polemics, you need to contribute
> >to the hard work of creating software that can break the
> >business model and established network effects that chain us
> >to poor software quality. To date, Open Source software
> >development is the only option that shows any promise of
> >generating a return on that hard effort.
> >
> >--
> >Mark Hamstra
> >Bentley Systems, Inc.
>
> First, I object to your terminology -- "easy polemics" and
> "insulting potification" are inflammatory words, and I do
> not thing my orignal post indulged in either.
Yes, I am sure you are correct that other engineers love to
be told they have no respect for their profession or pride in
their craft, that they should stop being so foolish and "Just
Say No". The slogan didn't work when Nancy Reagan didn't
understand the realities of drug addiction and economics, and
I wouldn't expect it to be much more successful when applied
to software.
> You seem to
> be one of the engineers who simply throw up their hands and
> say, "What can I do?"
Part of what I mean by "easy polemics" and "insulting
pontifications": you have not a clue who I am or what drives
my decision making -- and just for the record, I am currently
in the process of assuming a great deal more responsibility
and personal financial risk in an effort to make a difference
in the portions of the software market I care most about, so
your straw man could hardly be more inappropriately placed.
> It means doing more than simply paying lip-service to writing
> good code. It means not only writing good code yourself, but
> not putting up with less from anyone else, either. It means
> making sacrifices to enforce good code -- eschewing the new
> release of WhizBangProd 1.0 just because it has niftier graphics
> or a multimedia layer, for example, until the vendor fixes bugs.
"Just Say No" isn't going to get the job done, and getting
insubordinate to the point of risking significantly decreased
revenues under the current business model is likely to get you
nothing but fired. Only through providing enough functionality
to get the job done and tangible benefits that the proprietary
model can't match can the Open Source effort hope to break the
constraints of the current software market.
> For myself, posting the original memo was the first part of my
> own project to raise awareness to the issue; the next step is
> to evangelize it in my own circle of developers. If the ill-
> will of lazy programmers is the worst I suffer, I'll be glad
> of it.
I couldn't care less about ill will that you engender among lazy
programmers, but you are equally or more likely to offend the
good ones at the same time, and that's not a particularly good way
to garner quality support. While ill will may be the worst you'll
suffer, it's also likely the most you'll gain -- in which case,
what's the point?
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
